By most accounts, President Barack Obama’s win and the party’s strong showing in Senate races gave the Democrats a leg up in the negotiations to avoid across-the-board tax hikes and draconian spending cuts set to kick in Jan. 1.

Yet getting a deal that raises tax rates for the wealthy may not be so easy for the party, and not just because of inevitable GOP resistance.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will have to find 60 votes to extend just the middle-income tax rates — far from a given when a swath of the Senate’s moderate Democrats are up for reelection in 2014.

Reid and the White House will also need to navigate a hardening Democratic divide on entitlements. Progressives don’t want any deep cuts that Republicans will insist on for a deal. But a Third Way poll of 800 Obama voters set for release Tuesday found that efforts to fix Medicare and Social Security enjoy broader support than liberals suggest.

Even if Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) were to risk his job by backing a tax-rate increase, there are Democrats who think a $250,000 income threshold is too low. So finding 218 House members to pass a bill that would extend the lower tax brackets isn’t exactly a cakewalk. Want Boehner to raise taxes? Republicans privately say the entitlement changes would have to be unimaginably sweeping.

In a nutshell, Democrats haven’t yet coalesced around a position themselves, let alone found agreement with Republicans.

So while the election might have given Obama the political leverage to insist in allowing individual tax rates for high-income earners to snap back to nearly 40 percent, getting there is another matter.

“If you look at history, mandates are what you make of them,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat who represents the wealthy suburbs of Washington and backs raising taxes on families making more than $1 million annually. “Some people win election by very narrow margins and make enormous mandates out of them, and some people win by enormous margins and squander whatever mandate they’ve got.”

Top Senate Democrats are confident Reid can balance the conflicting demands of liberals and moderates. He has the confidence of his Democratic Caucus, and they don’t believe — although many Republicans do — that Obama will blink on raising tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.

“Every time a deal has sputtered or failed to come together at this point, it’s been because of the Republicans’ unwillingness to deal with revenues, not Democrats’ queasiness over making serious choices on spending cuts,” said a top Senate Democratic aide. “Certainly there are members of our caucus who are laying down markers now to try to get the best deal possible. But at the end of the day, the votes will be there for a balanced package.”

The poll from Third Way, a centrist group, attempts to speak to center-left lawmakers who may be sympathetic to the rising calls from liberals to not compromise. Unions and other progressive groups have pointed to surveys showing that Democrats don’t want lawmakers to touch entitlements, don’t view the debt and deficit as a top priority, and don’t favor Obama working with Republicans.

“Our workers are not making as much as they made in the same jobs 25 years ago. My father was a bartender. My mother was a maid at hotel. They were able to provide for us a standard of living..."

Well, Marco, Republicans would first tell you that today's bartenders and hotel maids are getting paid based on the free market. Actually they might tell you they are actually overpaid because of the minimum wage. They will tell you that it doesn't matter if their wages relative to the income of the owners of the hotels and restaurants and bars is a fraction of what it was 25 years ago. Owners are under no moral obligation to share their profits with the workers who enable them.

Next they will tell you that if today's bartenders and hotel maids want better jobs they should work harder and develop better skills. I'm guessing you, Senator, would not describe your parents as lazy or moochers. Yet many in your party would say exactly that about today's bartenders and hotel maids. Over the last 25 years we have not developed robotic bartenders or self-cleaning hotel rooms. And yet people still pay to be served drinks and to sleep in clean hotel rooms. So it seems that those jobs are as necessary today as they were 25 years ago. Why is that no longer enough for your party, Senator? Why does your party ridicule today's versions of your parents?

Maybe we should come up with a plan and let Washington know what we want - I don't think they are capable of coming up with anything!!

Here's my start :

• Cap on Deductions to $50,000 (which has been found will produce the same revenue as raising rates) - strongly believe that raising rates does NOTHING to get the really rich. Just think of how many deductions Obama's rich Hollywood friends get for business expenses - probably every facial, new clothes, haircut, etc.. They will not pay more if rates go up

• Capital Gains to be changed 0% for up to $200,000, 15% for $200,000 to 1 Million and 25% for amounts over that. - you raise capital gains on everyone it will hurt many people who are retired and living on their investments. If raise this too much it will hurt growth.

• Corporate rates to 25% - two reasons - we need growth and then small business may stop using individual rates

• Some how cut corporate loopholes - they are more complex and would take sometime BUT GE should not be paying 0 in income taxes!

Also, believe there needs to be a freeze on all spending - this automatic increases that they get and call them spending cuts is WRONG! Then each year the budget for all departments is reduced 1% until the budget is balanced.

Social Security then we have to take Simpson Bowles proposal in year 2 - but would do it sooner than they have proposed - like in 2025 1 year then the next in 2040. ALSO stop that payroll deduction that Obama gave - that is taking from the Social Secuirty fund.

Medicare - something needs to be done - not sure on this yet. Personally I did not think Paul Ryan's plan sounded so bad. Something does need to be done and we've got to stop being a nation that demonized anyone who is wiling to try and find solutions.

Harry has plenty of bones - pay off a few Senators facing re-election in 2014 - get a few votes - send them on a few junkets at our expense - no problemo - that is the way of the new Obama Governance mentality. Trust us - we are from Chicago- Harry sees another TRILLION and a HALF in his grasp! He'll go for it!

“The most important thing is we end up with a balanced deal,” Welch said, describing the thinking of those who are prepared to allow all tax rates to jump. “If we end up with a balanced deal on July 15, that’s much better in the long term for the middle class and the economy than if we end up with a bad deal on Dec. 15.”

A balanced approach is the best way to reduce the huge National Debt. Which entails reductions in discretionary spending and income tax increases.

Boehner is Paul Ryan's and Eric Cantor's puppet. He will do whatever they want.all

Let the Bush tax cuts expire!! Let the sequestration begin!!

The Party of No will not compromise!!!

Republicans will stand with their pledge to Grover Norquist!!!

More stalemate!!

Good luck with eliminating the filibuster rule in the Senate!!!

>Republican strategist Dan Bartlett smugly said in a recent interview that the tax cuts were a trap for Democrats designed by Bush and the Republicans to detonate on someone else’s watch.

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which are directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to TOTAL revenues. These include the above-mentioned Social Insurance revenues for which the tax rate went UP. It seems highly hypocritical to include these revenues (which were likely bolstered by the tax hike) as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

Still, it's important to note that the Kennedy tax cut reduced the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%. Reagan went on to reduce it from 70% to 50% in 1981 and from 50% to 28% in 1986. A marginal rate of 91% seems exceptionally high, at least by today's standards. Hence, it would seem possible that Kennedy's tax cut was beneficial, at least in reducing this oppressive top marginal rate but that Reagan's tax cuts took the marginal rates to a level where the negative effects far outweighed any positive effects.

Hence, although it's been just about eleven years since the 2001 tax cut and nine years since the 2003 tax cut, the evidence to this point is that the Bush tax cuts decreased revenues over what they would have been, at least over the short term. This was true even in my prior analysis based on data through 2007, before the financial crisis of 2008.

""The poll from Third Way, a centrist group, attempts to speak to center-left lawmakers who may be sympathetic to the rising calls from liberals to not compromise."

Heck, just show them a few CBO projections?

Or google CNBC's "Are we rich or poor?" debate (worth watching):

http://video.cnbc.com/g...

You can take every dime from each US citizen and still not enough.

Or, "If current policies continue, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently projected, federal debt will rise from 70 percent of gross domestic product today to about 225 percent by 2040 — not even remotely sustainable. By that point, the federal government would be spending nearly four times as much on debt interest payments as on education, skills training, research and development and nondefense infrastructure combined."

“I’ve put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan…. And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 of additional revenue…. That’s how the bipartisan commission that talked about how we should move forward suggested.”—

Obama

http://www.washingtonpo...

So, we need substantial irreversible transparent spending cuts to go along with ANY spending increases.

“The most important thing is we end up with a balanced deal,” Welch said, describing the thinking of those who are prepared to allow all tax rates to jump. “If we end up with a balanced deal on July 15, that’s much better in the long term for the middle class and the economy than if we end up with a bad deal on Dec. 15.”

A balanced approach is the best way to reduce the huge National Debt. Which entails reductions in discretionary spending and income tax increases.

Boehner is Paul Ryan's and Eric Cantor's puppet. He will do whatever they want.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire!! Let the sequestration begin!!

The Party of No will not compromise!!!

Republicans will stand with their pledge to Grover Norquist!!!

More stalemate!!

Good luck with eliminating the filibuster rule in the Senate!!!

Republican strategist Dan Bartlett smugly said in a recent interview that the tax cuts were a trap for Democrats designed by Bush and the Republicans to detonate on someone else’s watch.

Obama wants to increase the rate to 39.6% for taxable incomes over $250,000. The top rate is currently 35%. The top rate before the Bush tax cuts was 39.6%.

EFFECT OF REAGAN, KENNEDY, AND BUSH TAX CUTS ON REVENUES

EFFECT OF REAGAN TAX CUTS ON REVENUES - SHORT ANALYSIS

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which are directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to TOTAL revenues. These include the above-mentioned Social Insurance revenues for which the tax rate went UP. It seems highly hypocritical to include these revenues (which were likely bolstered by the tax hike) as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

Still, it's important to note that the Kennedy tax cut reduced the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%. Reagan went on to reduce it from 70% to 50% in 1981 and from 50% to 28% in 1986. A marginal rate of 91% seems exceptionally high, at least by today's standards. Hence, it would seem possible that Kennedy's tax cut was beneficial, at least in reducing this oppressive top marginal rate but that Reagan's tax cuts took the marginal rates to a level where the negative effects far outweighed any positive effects.

Hence, although it's been just about eleven years since the 2001 tax cut and nine years since the 2003 tax cut, the evidence to this point is that the Bush tax cuts decreased revenues over what they would have been, at least over the short term. This was true even in my prior analysis based on data through 2007, before the financial crisis of 2008.

Finding 60 votes to extend the tax cuts for middle class Americans after ending all the Bush Tax Cuts will not be that hard to do as the writers of this article say. Don't for get the Republicans had 47 percent of the vote, but of the 47 percent who voted GOP, minus the top 2 percent and then another 15 percent in the upper income brackets, that leaves 25 percent who are middle class to low income GOP tax payers who would be hurt by the inaction of the Republicans to cut their taxes and who would vote against them in the next elections. In other words the Democrats for a change hold all the cards when it comes to the Bush tax cuts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will have to find 60 votes to extend just the middle-income tax rates — far from a given when a swath of the Senate’s moderate Democrats are up for reelection in 2014.

Poppycock!

All that need be done is to go #overthecliff. In January modify the filibuster to require a Senator to hold the floor speaking against the bill or amendment at issue. Once the filibuster ends call for a majority vote and restore the tax cuts for the 98% with a simple paragraph that says,

"Retroactive to January 1st 2013, taxes on all but the highest rate will be as they were on January 1st, 2012."

Simple and done. Then they can move on to the sequestration.

The Senate needs to show Americans that they aren't just taking paychecks for doing nothing.

To quote an old Nike commercial, "JUST DO IT!"

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." - P.J. O'Rourke

This is but one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of reasons the national debt keeps going up:

"WelcometoUSA.gov" a website maintained by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), bills itself as the “primary gateway for new immigrants to find basic information on how to settle in the United States” — featuring a prominent section for new immigrants about how to access government benefits."